<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Farrell
wrote:<BR>>> I'm working on an 1890s Knabe grand. Everything in the action
is <BR>>> new except rails and keyframe (both of which have been
rebuilt) and <BR>>> action brackets.<BR>> <BR>> From the
pix, it's clear that this is one of these 19th century <BR>> actions
with extremely tall string heights. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Yes it is. 8-3/4" string height.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> The line from the Rep <BR>> center to
the cap/heel contact looks almost as steeply inclined than <BR>> the
line from the hammer center to the knuckle/jack contact. The <BR>>
further from horizontal is the swing of your levers, the more of the
<BR>> the arc's motion ends up in the horizontal vector rather than the
<BR>> vertical.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Well, the levers are horizontal, but I do agree with you
that the further the contact point is between two levers (such as the
wip-heel/capstan contact), the more horizontal motion will be introduced. In
this case however, whereas the original configuration with some very tall
back-angled capstans has tons of friction on the wip heel contact (you could
easily observe the capstan sliding a millimeter or so along the heel), the
modified configuration seems to be very efficient - no sliding is evident at
all. So my suspicion is that this action can be setup efficiently with the
current string heights - unless, of course, if there is some other major issue I
am overlooking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> It's a form of action inefficiency
aggravated by tall <BR>> string heights. The only solution is to raise
the keybed (......what <BR>> is this guy, nuts or
sumpin'?)<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Man, I'll go to some pretty far extremes for the no
compromise approach, but..........</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Farrell
wrote:<BR>>> How can you be so smart to know that this action had lots of
lead <BR>>> in the keys? ;-)<BR>> <BR>> On Jul 3, 2007,
at 2:05 PM, Farrell wrote:<BR>>> FW: 36.25 (0.966 of Stanwood's maximum
FWs)<BR>> <BR>> Speaking of which, you didn't list a SW. (Or was that the
"F= 11.5")</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT size=3>Indeed, you are correct. SW
on that note (#16) was 11.9 (as indicated on the
hammer)<BR> <BR></FONT>> Mr. Bill</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Terry Farrell</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>